"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"
Cicero Marcus Tullius
When it comes to judges who apparently can't read a legal dictionary, you shouldn't leave anything to chance.Nothing in RFRA suggests a congressional intent to depart from the Dictionary Act definition of “person,” which “include[s] corporations, . . . as well as individuals.” 1 U. S. C. §1. The Court has entertained RFRA and free-exercise claims brought by nonprofit corporations. See, e.g., Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficiente União do Vegetal, 546 U. S. 418. And HHS’s concession that a nonprofit corporation can be a “person” under RFRA effectively dispatches any argument that the term does not reach for-profit corporations; no conceivable definition of “person” includes natural persons and nonprofit corporations, but not for-profit corporations. Pp. 19–20. (ii) HHS and the dissent nonetheless argue that RFRA does not cover Conestoga, Hobby Lobby, and Mardel because they cannot “exercise . . . religion.” They offer no persuasive explanation for this conclusion.
theres no special treatment in equal rights
2.) what i said and what you are trying to make it into are two different things lol. nce try thogh
fact remains antidiscrimination laws and equal rights and civil rights dont "force acceptance"
try sticking to what was actually said
3.) wrong again, see #2
4.) yeah yeah , i dont discriminant against black people, i serve them all the time they just have to come in the back and drink of out of thier own water fountain . . . . sounds so familiar. SOrry that is in fact discrimination based on sexual orientation as the case decided
5.) the definition of the word makes her a bigot she see gays and thier marriages as lessers and dont think they are worthy of equal rights, that by definition is a bigot.
she is a hypocrite IF she did any weddings that were not her exact religion, 1st marriages or any weddings that were not religious in any way.
6.) doent matter how many americans are besides her, bigotry is bigotry and rights are rights. Well over 80% of the counrty was against interracial marriage at one time too meanignless to rights.
7.) that proposal would be factually wrong because thats not what bigotry is at all, it has a clear definition
8.) i agree 100% good thing nobody is doing that here and more importantly the intolerance has to actually take place.
9.) wrong again, but please keep making up failed straw man they only further expose the failure of your argument
the law works EQUAL thats how it is designed to work, SOME of these people want it to be unequal. Belifs do NOT play a role vs rights. Trying to twist what the actual ruling was wont work, WHat if hobbly lobby believe they could just kill people would that work? of course not. SO sorry that claim is 100% factually wrong it wasnt "all that mattered"
10.) i wasnt sayign the question itself is easy i was saying its an easy question as in to ask and exposes the huge failure of the law.
having thirty-plus states determine each case is mentally retarded and the exact opposite of how equal rights and civil rights works. If the question is that hard thats hows EXACTLY why its a horrible idea and people are going for special treatment, thank you for further pointing that out. Having 50 sets of rules or exceptions is not equal and stupid. Its simply just easier if we all go by the same rules and some people dont try to get special rules for themselves
Pretty funny, actually.
"It is only when men contemplate the greatness of God that they can come to realize their own inadequacy." Jean Calvin
You keep deliberately missing the point, but those with the "faux" outrage are just taking the right wing anti-SSM crowd at their word that this law was intended to target homosexuals and SSM. It is in the news now, and I don't think the sudden push in red states to pass RFRA type laws is a coincidence or because they're all suddenly worried about native American rituals etc...
What would make the controversy go away is Indiana taking at least a partial step into the law like Utah did that explicitly protects gays - in Utah it was just in employment and housing, but that's a good first step. What's the harm?